![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsidheWith the departure of Petro Georgio, the Liberal Party of Australia has lost the leader of it's only reserve of honour and decency, and the rest has been left to Julie Bishop, Tony Abbott and the Young Liberals.
Julie Bishop, on Insiders, opened her mouth and proceeded to spew forth pure hypocrisy in concentrated form. She declaimed as a matter of principle, as if she has any, that Stern Hu is being held unjustly: that the Chinese must charge him immediately, or free him immediately.
To which anyone with a memory should havethree four things to say to her:
1. David Hicks.
2. Mohammed Haneef.
3. The entire Liberal Party anti-refugee program.
4. Fuck you.
In the paper I read of Tony Abbott and his rumoured upcoming book, wherein he is said to be planning a new manifesto to “reclaim conservatism”. In which he wants to set up a system to destroy marriage.
Well, what he actually want is to get laws in so as to allow for “traditional”, “conservative” marriages. That is, he wants people about to get married to be forced to choose whether they are married under the current no-fault divorce rules, or under hisnew old, pre-Murphy's Law, show-cause, you can get a divorce if and only if you can legally prove to a court (at great expense) that your partner is a monster.
So after all the ‘conservative’ screaming and tantrums about allowing gay marriage being a straight line to the destruction of marriage, he plans to create two classes of marriage, and I have no doubt that if he were in a position to make that legal, he would as well make one of these a ‘proper’ marriage, and the other a glorified civil union or de-facto arrangement. Not that he would allow people who share genital configuration to participate in any of these, unless the Tax Department sees profit in it. I suspect that he would graciously allow existing marriages to ‘upgrade’ to theOld New Improved Marriage Plus, bet you my left arm that ‘downgrading’ from it would be even more impossible than getting a divorce.
The thing is, I have no problem with Catholics (Orthodox Jews, Exclusive Brethren, whatever) holding themselves to higher standards of marriage. All they have to do is just fucking do it. They do not get to tell me what my marriage should be like, with legal enforcement. What Tony shows in this proposal, assuming that the reports are correct, and that's a big if, is that he has a hugely low opinion of humanity, including and especially Catholics, that there must be the option of legal sanction to force people to do what he thinks is morally right. If it's hard to do the right thing, then doing it is an achievement. If there is legal sanction against it, then 1: it takes away from the achievement of those who don't need that sanction, and 2: it won't stop people behaving immorally: it will merely criminalise it.
I thought the Liberal Party was supposed to be about personal freedoms? That's certainly the bullshit peddled by Howard, and every one of his cronies, enforcers, and useful idiots. And they were either wrong or lying when they said it. From police powers against political dissent, to the demonisation of political opponents in the press, to this rumoured proposed move to legally enforce Tony Abbott's personal morality, Howard's legacy has been to eliminate personal choice, except for the stuff that doesn't matter. And that legacy is being kept alive by the Australian Hypocrite Party, and each and every one of Howard's fellow travellers, in cabinet and in the thinktanks, and in the Young Liberals, and in the press.
Julie Bishop, on Insiders, opened her mouth and proceeded to spew forth pure hypocrisy in concentrated form. She declaimed as a matter of principle, as if she has any, that Stern Hu is being held unjustly: that the Chinese must charge him immediately, or free him immediately.
To which anyone with a memory should have
1. David Hicks.
2. Mohammed Haneef.
3. The entire Liberal Party anti-refugee program.
4. Fuck you.
In the paper I read of Tony Abbott and his rumoured upcoming book, wherein he is said to be planning a new manifesto to “reclaim conservatism”. In which he wants to set up a system to destroy marriage.
Well, what he actually want is to get laws in so as to allow for “traditional”, “conservative” marriages. That is, he wants people about to get married to be forced to choose whether they are married under the current no-fault divorce rules, or under his
So after all the ‘conservative’ screaming and tantrums about allowing gay marriage being a straight line to the destruction of marriage, he plans to create two classes of marriage, and I have no doubt that if he were in a position to make that legal, he would as well make one of these a ‘proper’ marriage, and the other a glorified civil union or de-facto arrangement. Not that he would allow people who share genital configuration to participate in any of these, unless the Tax Department sees profit in it. I suspect that he would graciously allow existing marriages to ‘upgrade’ to the
The thing is, I have no problem with Catholics (Orthodox Jews, Exclusive Brethren, whatever) holding themselves to higher standards of marriage. All they have to do is just fucking do it. They do not get to tell me what my marriage should be like, with legal enforcement. What Tony shows in this proposal, assuming that the reports are correct, and that's a big if, is that he has a hugely low opinion of humanity, including and especially Catholics, that there must be the option of legal sanction to force people to do what he thinks is morally right. If it's hard to do the right thing, then doing it is an achievement. If there is legal sanction against it, then 1: it takes away from the achievement of those who don't need that sanction, and 2: it won't stop people behaving immorally: it will merely criminalise it.
I thought the Liberal Party was supposed to be about personal freedoms? That's certainly the bullshit peddled by Howard, and every one of his cronies, enforcers, and useful idiots. And they were either wrong or lying when they said it. From police powers against political dissent, to the demonisation of political opponents in the press, to this rumoured proposed move to legally enforce Tony Abbott's personal morality, Howard's legacy has been to eliminate personal choice, except for the stuff that doesn't matter. And that legacy is being kept alive by the Australian Hypocrite Party, and each and every one of Howard's fellow travellers, in cabinet and in the thinktanks, and in the Young Liberals, and in the press.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Marriage Plus
Date: 2009-07-12 10:44 am (UTC)As you may guess I like Tony very much. (Remember when Howard and Costello were migrant-bashing, Tony put his hand up to say No!!! I remember it well. It was a good moment in our political history and Howard/Costello suddenly shut up about it. This is your conscience speaking, boys. Don't mess with him because he's a better man than either of you...) He knows that governments can't enforce his private morality. It's just an ongoing process wherein he keeps having to remind himself. SO when Tony's Thinking ALoud like this, it's actually the case that he's waiting for someone to remind him of the role of Vatican City in a modern liberal democracy. Viz and to whit: zero, zip, niente, de nada, zilch.
Re: Marriage Plus
Date: 2009-07-12 11:15 am (UTC)And yet...
Look at the state of the Libs. (Federally, I mean. The various state Libs are all useless to a fault, and are only likely to win when — not if — the various Labor corruptions and incompetencies finally outweigh the Lib's own inadequacies by the required margin of hysteresis.)
Turnbull with the Grech email affair has shot himself in the foot, after first placing said foot firmly in his mouth. His next act was to resurrect a stunt which didn't work the first time, and is being ridiculed from one end of the country to the other... amongst those who've noticed and care, at any rate. Who's after him? Julie Bishop, who has shown herself to have soaked up all the lessons of Howard and Ruddock, and not learned from any of them. The cuddly bear Hockey, who I don't think anyone trusts enough to turn their back on him. Abbott, who no matter how true and faithful he may be to his moral duty, still has to overcome the two disadvantages of i. being seen as ‘The Mad Monk’, and ii. being known as part of Howard's gang. Abetz? No. Coonan? Hah! Pyne? *snort*.
When Abbott puts something like this into print... assuming, of course, that he is — no-one's read the book yet... it is not just personal musings, it is going to be pored over as the thoughts of one of the most likely up-and-coming leaders of the Coalition. And this will, will be picked up and run with by petty demagogues like Bolt and Akerman, who demonstrably Do Not Care about any such niceties as whether the Vatican should have a say in Australian politics, and will assume that if the leader of the Libs says it is Right and True, then it by definition is, and anyone who says otherwise is a commie.
And I'm not looking forward to that.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-12 11:32 am (UTC)Please, don't :)
Re: Marriage Plus
Date: 2009-07-12 11:39 am (UTC)I wouldn't know, not even having read Mere Christianity. I would rather read his works on Middle English linguistics, although I don't doubt that I would find much in his more spiritually inclined writings to ponder.
Perhaps, browsing his bibliography in the Encyclopaedia of Lies and Rumour, the notion you mention is in one of the collections of his essays.
You rant so I don't have to.
Date: 2009-07-12 11:54 am (UTC)CSL indeed
Date: 2009-07-13 01:23 am (UTC)State of the Libs???
Date: 2009-07-13 01:29 am (UTC)I think they would be far better off just being a free-market libertarian party. As in: here's the Enlightenment, and we are in favour of it. Tony probably thinks that too, but the ghosts of the seminary still lurk in the back of his brain.
But until the Libs work out what they ARE in favour of, they are likely to be in opposition for some time yet....
PS Christopher Pyne
Date: 2009-07-13 01:35 am (UTC)